Carefully consider these references:

Matt 16:17      And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Heb 2:14        Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

1 Cor 15:50   Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

From the above we see that:
– the term ‘flesh and blood‘ is a clear reference to the human person
(Matt 16:17, Heb 2:14)
– ‘flesh and blood‘ cannot “inherit the kingdom of God”, so has no hope in its natural state of ever seeing heaven

Notice this. The Lord Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”. He was saying in effect: ‘I never told you and neither did anyone else on this planet.’ He was acknowledging He was ‘flesh and blood‘.

Now consider this reference:
Luke 24:39    Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

We understand that this is a reference to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus. [No doubt similar to what we expect to have one day when we return to earth with Him.]  It was this body which the disciples saw ascend into heaven! So this body of ‘flesh and bones‘ never came under the same constraints physically or spiritually as the ‘flesh and blood‘ body. The ‘flesh and bones‘ body could enter heaven but the ‘flesh and blood‘ body could never.

That’s fine, we can all accept that. But now think about this reference:
Gen 2:23        And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:

Doesn’t this strike you as being a very deliberate choice of words? It says flesh and bones. Why didn’t Adam speak of ‘flesh and blood‘? Does this suggest that Adam and Eve first had ‘flesh and bones‘ bodies when created and not ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies? Remember, this is said of Eve before they sinned.

Does this now explain why God said to Adam, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. In other words, Adam and Eve were initially built for everlasting life, in bodies which could “inherit the kingdom of God”. They had ‘flesh and bones‘ bodies and not ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies.

After Adam and Eve sinned did God’s pronouncement of a curse on the earth and His words to Adam and to Eve bring about changes to their bodies?

As sinners they would not now be fit to enter heaven. But did the “thou shalt surely die” now take on a very real meaning also? Ironically, it was the ‘flesh and blood‘ bodies of Adam and Eve which guaranteed their physical death, yet we associate blood with being the key essential element to give life.

And how significant it is that the Lord Jesus shed His blood in that one eternally efficacious atoning sacrifice for sin. In order to make that possible He took on a ‘flesh and blood‘ body when “God was manifest in the flesh.” Note the words of Romans 8:3:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh…

The Scriptures deliberately record that the Lord Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

I wonder how much has never really been uncovered yet in Scripture regarding the significance of the blood of Christ. I’m convinced there must be more on the subject that we should know about, and that we never hear spoken on.